You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

You can also visit our chat room where posts automatically expire after a maximum of 72 hours.

In a ruling handed down Wed., 5 November 2003 in Idaho v. Perry, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled polygraph evidence inadmissible. Perry had sought the admission of testimony by Dr. Charles R. Honts regarding a polygraph examination that he administered. The 9-page ruling may be downloaded here:

In a ruling handed down Wed., 5 November 2003 in Idaho v. Perry, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled polygraph evidence inadmissible. Perry had sought the admission of testimony by Dr. Charles R. Honts regarding a polygraph examination that he administered. The 9-page ruling may be downloaded here:

Fascinating opinion. Yet another opinion tossing polygraph testimony which would have been favorable to the defense. And no less than by Hont's himself. It was interesting to see how the NAS report was cited to include the polygraph testimony. That's a new one.

The polygraph seems to be ok to be used for screening, widely agreed to be less accurate than specific incident tests, but not good enough that a defendant can even bring it up (in a specific incidence test) to a jury to defend themselves from a murder charge.

In any case it tells you what the prosecutors think of how valid a polygraph is even when given by one of the best known experts.